Park direct uk ltd refused transfer of liability

winnahwinnah2025

@Coupon-mad need some advice on the next steps 

Coupon-mad

PpcRscum2025 said:

 so should I appeal to ias see what they say which most likely they will side with ppc then if I take it to court would I stand a chance to beat them seeing as they refused to transfer liability ?

Nobody said to appeal, although you could do that as well, if only for our amusement and evidence of how the IAS handle it.

You could use a combo of @Car1980 and @Johnersh's words for IAS.

Re the complaint to Park Direct do a combo of my suggested reply plus Johnersh's two paragraphs. By the way, my reply about the DMCC Act has already frightened off one PPC (CUP Enforcement) into cancelling this month.

Could you show the PCN please, both sides.

Are pics being taken by CCTV or by that person lurking in the photo?!

winnahwinnah2025

Coupon-mad said:

PpcRscum2025 said:

 so should I appeal to ias see what they say which most likely they will side with ppc then if I take it to court would I stand a chance to beat them seeing as they refused to transfer liability ?

Nobody said to appeal, although you could do that as well, if only for our amusement and evidence of how the IAS handle it.

You could use a combo of @Car1980 and @Johnersh's words for IAS.

Re the complaint to Park Direct do a combo of my suggested reply plus Johnersh's two paragraphs. By the way, my reply about the DMCC Act has already frightened off one PPC (CUP Enforcement) into cancelling this month.

Could you show the PCN please, both sides.

Are pics being taken by CCTV or by that person lurking in the photo?!

The person in the photo was me but the warden lurks about hiding taken photos and I'm stood there because that's exactly where he took a picture of my car from so no CCTV or ANPR just a low life warden and as you will see in the picture there are cars parked blocking the signs from view as they are waist level and the red pedestrian barriers you see was in front of the sign which you would not know there was a sign if it is behind a barrier and the lowlife warden moved it to then take a picture and you can see a bit of the mini roundabout in the picture meaning he took a picture from across the road and zoomed in 

Kaizen2024

Given the OP was happy to identify the driver, surely all this back and forth could have been avoided if the driver just submitted an appeal themself from the outset 🤷🏼‍♂️

winnahwinnah2025

Kaizen2024 said:

Given the OP was happy to identify the driver, surely all this back and forth could have been avoided if the driver just submitted an appeal themself from the outset 🤷🏼‍♂️

What do you mean by OP and they refused to transfer liability to the driver so they've been going back and forth with me forcing me to take liability and to pay 

winnahwinnah2025

Johnersh said:

...or indeed if the PPC got off their bony !!!!!! and asked the driver if s/he was driving - which they appear to have never done.

I'd not be faffing with signs or appeals, but send a "one and done" letter and then wait. 

Exactly, they have not even tried to communicate with driver they simply refused to transfer liability because I didn't send them nominated drivers copy and proof of licence and valid insurance... so would you say I have a good chance of winning if they take me to court and do you think they would try to take me court ?

Coupon-mad

PpcRscum2025 said:

 ...the warden lurks about hiding taken photos and I'm stood there because that's exactly where he took a picture of my car from so no CCTV or ANPR just a low life warden and as you will see in the picture there are cars parked blocking the signs from view as they are waist level and the red pedestrian barriers you see was in front of the sign which you would not know there was a sign if it is behind a barrier and the lowlife warden moved it to then take a picture and you can see a bit of the mini roundabout in the picture meaning he took a picture from across the road and zoomed in 

This is the email I received after transferring liability on their web page 

Now I'm up to here with them

 either pay reduced or the ias which i know is futile from what I've heard 

They replied 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Whilst we understand your concerns and wish to assist in resolving this matter, please be advised that in order to transfer liability, we require valid documentation confirming that the nominated individual was the driver at the time of the contravention.

 

As previously requested, we need a copy of the nominated driver’s valid driving licence and insurance documents, confirming they were authorised to use the vehicle on the date in question. This is a standard requirement in line with our internal policy and is necessary to ensure compliance with our procedures.

 

Additionally, please note that under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, liability for a parking charge rests with the registered keeper unless it can be demonstrated, through appropriate evidence, that another individual was responsible.

As we have not yet received the required supporting documentation, we are unable to transfer liability in this instance.

 

Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Then I replied 

I have given you required information about the driver whos liable their name and address. There is no contract between me the registered keeper and parking direct uk and in that respect parking direct uk must contact the driver in which case me the registered keeper is unable to help and parking direct uk must carry out their own enquiries. This pcn will not be POFA compliant as you are not transferring the PCN to the person liable who ive given you details for. You can't make me liable for something I'm not liable for...

They replied 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Whilst we understand your concerns and wish to assist in resolving this matter, please be advised that in order to transfer liability, we require valid documentation confirming that the nominated individual was the driver at the time of the contravention.

 

As previously requested, we need a copy of the nominated driver’s valid driving licence and insurance documents, confirming they were authorised to use the vehicle on the date in question. This is a standard requirement in line with our internal policy and is necessary to ensure compliance with our procedures.

 

Additionally, please note that under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, liability for a parking charge rests with the registered keeper unless it can be demonstrated, through appropriate evidence, that another individual was responsible.

As we have not yet received the required supporting documentation, we are unable to transfer liability in this instance.

 

Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Stop offering money.

Send this:

Dear Park Direct,

This is my final position. Stop being patronising and trying to put obstacles in the way of a POFA Schedule 4 transfer of liability.

Send a PCN to the driver as the law requires you to do. There is no law that allows liability to 'remain with me'.

Your stance is unreasonable and illegal and if you continue to pursue me despite the transfer of liability, I'll make a complaint to the DVLA and the ICO regarding abuse of my data by continuing to use it for a purpose that is now outside of the reason it was supplied.

I will also alert my MP, with instructions to raise this with the MHCLG and I will require my MP to assist me in reporting Park Direct UK to the Competition and Markets Authority ('CMA'), who - since April - have new powers under the DMCC Act.

Ask Derek at 'BPA Lawline' if you subscribe to that, or I suggest you seek alternative legal advice if you don't understand: the CMA can now fine companies involved in 'misleading conduct' up to 10% of your turnover.

Want to be the first of many of your ilk?

You have a week to remedy your actions and I appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. If not, you can expect to hear from the above authorities in June.

 Yours faithfully

Parking industry poster Kaizen2024 said:

Given the OP was happy to identify the driver, surely all this back and forth could have been avoided if the driver just submitted an appeal themself from the outset 🤷🏼‍♂️

That comes across as a consumer blame mentality; we are never going to see eye to eye if that's your approach here or elsewhere.

Could also have been avoided if the ex-clampers had affixed a windscreen PCN for the driver to find in a timely manner,  rather then writing to the keeper.

Or better still, simply moved the driver on or issued a warning notice first. That's a fair way to treat consumers.

But no, of course this is an IPC firm which

1. hides its signs and

2. denies a valid transfer of liability

So we aren't going to see fairness from them, are we?

I thought you wanted full compliance?!  Utter joke when the industry spout that lie, but it's what the ATAs tell the MHCLG!

Aren't you horrified by the abject lowlife scammery of using red barriers to hide the signs, AND refusing to let the keeper transfer liability?

This one is worth reporting to the CMA because both the above aspects are clear breaches of the CPUTRs: 'misleading conduct / omissions'.

Do we agree on that?

Wonder which PPC will be the first to be fined by the CMA? My money is on an IPC firm.

Kaizen2024

PpcRscum2025 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Given the OP was happy to identify the driver, surely all this back and forth could have been avoided if the driver just submitted an appeal themself from the outset 🤷🏼‍♂️

What do you mean by OP and they refused to transfer liability to the driver so they've been going back and forth with me forcing me to take liability and to pay 

I don’t disagree that the operator should have written to the person identified (unless they had cause to believe the details were bogus, as some operators keep an eye out for known ‘avoidance’ address’) - I have not come across an operator asking for ID etc before.

Does not change the fact that you did not need to transfer liability, the driver could have simply made payment or appealed with no action from you required.

Note: OP = Original Poster

Coupon-mad

PpcRscum2025 said:

Johnersh said:

...or indeed if the PPC got off their bony !!!!!! and asked the driver if s/he was driving - which they appear to have never done.

I'd not be faffing with signs or appeals, but send a "one and done" letter and then wait. 

Exactly, they have not even tried to communicate with driver they simply refused to transfer liability because I didn't send them nominated drivers copy and proof of licence and valid insurance... so would you say I have a good chance of winning if they take me to court and do you think they would try to take me court ?

You have 100% win if they try court. The barriers plus the refusal to transfer liability would see any judge rip them a new one.

PLEASE send the reply I wrote for you then report them to the CMA. We'll help.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

PpcRscum2025 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Given the OP was happy to identify the driver, surely all this back and forth could have been avoided if the driver just submitted an appeal themself from the outset 🤷🏼‍♂️

What do you mean by OP and they refused to transfer liability to the driver so they've been going back and forth with me forcing me to take liability and to pay 

I don’t disagree that the operator should have written to the person identified (unless they had cause to believe the details were bogus, as some operators keep an eye out for known ‘avoidance’ address’) - I have not come across an operator asking for ID etc before.

Does not change the fact that you did not need to transfer liability, the driver could have simply made payment or appealed with no action from you required.

Made payment? In this case... with these CPUTRs breaches? Nobody in their right mind would! This is worse than clamping.

He can't lift a finger to affix a windscreen PCN but he can move a barrier to hide signs. Are the IPC happy with this?